#40: Enforcing the code of conduct
-------------------+---------------------------------
Reporter: duffy | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: Legal | Keywords: coc, code of conduct
-------------------+---------------------------------
See this post from the outreach-list regarding the actual enforcement of
the code of conduct as currently written:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/outreach/2015-July/000067.html
Langdon asked that this be made a ticket for council discussion, with the
concern that an unenforceable / consequence without an SOP is a threat and
isn't the right way to go:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/outreach/2015-August/000073.html
For reference, the actual text is:
"FUDCon brings together contributors and users from all over the world and
this diversity is one of our greatest strengths. This diversity however
can also lead to communication issues and unhappiness. Attendees are
required to be considerate and respectful of each other. This includes,
but is not limited to:
- "Refraining from rude behaviour
- "Refraining from any sort of harassment or discrimination (based on
ethnic background, religion, gender, sexuality, body shape, disability,
geographic location, sports team, preferred operating system or anything
else)
- "Obeying local laws
"Attendees who are in violation of this policy may be subject to removal
and banning from FUDCon (and future Fedora events). Whether an attendee is
in violation is at the sole discretion of the conference organizers.
Anyone with a possible concern relating to the code of conduct is
encouraged to either email Rupali Talwatkar or talk directly to one of the
designated FUDCon volunteers. Designated FUDCon volunteers will have a
dark blue coloured VOLUNTEER badge."
The line of particular concern here is:
"Attendees who are in violation of this policy may be subject to removal
and
banning from FUDCon (and future Fedora events)."
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/40>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets

#53: privacy policy should be updated to describe the privacy of Fedora
installations, not participation in Fedora events
---------------------+-------------------
Reporter: zbyszek | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: General | Keywords:
---------------------+-------------------
== How the privacy policy is specified ==
/usr/lib/os-release contains
PRIVACY_POLICY_URL=https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:PrivacyPolicy.
PRIVACY_POLICY_URL is documented to "refer to the main privacy policy page
for the operati[ng] system" [1]. This line was added to allow Gnome to
display a link to the privacy policy without hardcoding the text or URL.
It is currently shown by gnome-initial-setup [2].
[1] https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/os-
release.html#HOME_URL=
[2] https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/gnome-i-s-privacy-policy-
screenshot.png
== Recent attempts at updating ==
There have been two drafts that I'm aware of:
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/PrivacyPolicyRedux
discussed at [3]
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Spot/PrivacyPolicyProposal discussed
at [4]
[3]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2015-March/011700.html
[4] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/council-
discuss/2015-September/013633.html
Neither of those significantly address issues that have been raised in
response to both proposals.
== What is wrong with current policy ==
[This part is subjective of course, please read it as prefixed with "IMO"
everywhere]
As stated in $subject, it's a policy for a different purpose. The privacy
policy used as "the privacy policy for the OS" should primarily and
prominently describe what information is collected (or otherwise made
public) when Fedora is installed, when a user account on the Fedora
machine is created, and in normal use of Fedora.
Crafting a clear and simple policy will make a good impression that Fedora
Project cares about it's users privacy, and is safe to use in situations
where preserving personal information is important.
A general problem is that existing policy and proposed draft do not make a
clear distinction between a) installing Fedora and downloading updates, b)
creating accounts for Fedora development and using the bug tracker, c)
participating in Fedora conferences and such. Those three broad categories
have completely different privacy implications. Without being clear to
which of those the policy pertains means that the policy greatly
overstates the types of information being collected. In effect the policy
is much more relaxed (i.e. bad for the users) than it could be.
Specific issues raised:
Should there be mention of NetworkManager-config-connectivity-fedora? (ie,
checking http://fedoraproject.org/static/hotspot.txt for captive portal)
[5]
In the section about 'Cookies and other Browser information', it might be
useful to mention that the 'User Agent ID' of Browsers that are packaged
in Fedora is configured to identify the system as running Fedora. [6]
For example, the list in "Publicly Available Personal Information" really
isn't palatable. A better way of showing this might be to say: "the
information you give when creating your account will be public by default.
You can see what data is publicly visible <here> (link to the public page
for the user), modify your privacy settings <here>, and request deletion
of the account <here>" [7]
I also don't like the "Personal Information" vs. "Non-Personal
Information". It might be how a lawyer works, but just because it pertains
to a computer and not to a person doesn't make it less identifying. [7]
the privacy policy needs to refer to "user account" in such way that it'll
be clear that it's talking about accounts for contributors (FAS) and not a
user account on your system or an online account you add via GOA, to make
it clear Fedora doesn't scrape your name (or other identifying details)
from Google / Facebook accounts added via GOA, nor the "Full Name" field
of user accounts on your computer. [8]
> we may disclose personally identifiable information about you to third
parties
> in limited circumstances, including:
> ...
> - for research activities, including the production of statistical
reports (such
> aggregated information is used to describe our services and is not used
to
> contact the subjects of the report).
> ""
AFAIK, in Germany, it's the laws that any such "passing on personal
information" needs to be opt-in - "Opt-out" and "always-on" would be
unlawful. [10]
What procedures are being put in place so that EU residents (and hopefully
everyone) can contact Fedora or Red Hat to obtain/understand/verify/delete
their machine data, beyond obviously personal data?
[5] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/council-
discuss/2015-September/013643.html
[6]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2015-March/011703.html
[7]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2015-March/011727.html
[8]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2015-March/011729.html
[9] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/council-
discuss/2015-September/013637.html
[10] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/council-
discuss/2015-September/013637.html
[11] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/council-
discuss/2015-September/013649.html
== tl; dr ==
The policy is too complicated, yet lacks detail and does not provide
strong guarantees.
Statements like "The Information We Collect ... your Fedora Account
password .. your SSH public key ... your affiliation" are not appropriate
for a page linked to from the "Privacy Policy" link displayed during
installation.
I hope the Council can help to push towards a better policy document.
Currently things seem to be stuck in minimal edits over the last year and
half. Maybe the document should be opened for public editing on a wiki
somewhere so that people can rearrange the text and take it further from
current form. If the Council accepted the general idea of providing strong
privacy guarantees things could move forward.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/53>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets

#71: IRC SIG reform
---------------------+-------------------
Reporter: be0 | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: General | Keywords:
---------------------+-------------------
Following up from discussion on the council-discuss mailing list (
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-
discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/HZT6COEWSOYKPSUTPIUPGV2W4PO5JNDU/
), it seems the consensus from the Fedora community is that the IRC SIG
needs reform and an influx of new people to improve the hostile culture in
Fedora's IRC channels. The current members of the IRC SIG have taken no
initiative to make this happen themselves. Others have expressed interest
in making change, but cannot do so within the existing structure, so it
seems to be up to the Council to implement changes.
Proposed changes from the council-discuss thread:
1. Making channel OP privileges a temporary position
2. Logging administrative actions in a private log for all IRC SIG members
to reference
3. Soliciting other parts of Fedora for new IRC contributors, including
Ask.FPO, CommOps, devel and test lists, and the Diversity SIG. However, it
is not likely many new contributors will come unless there is actually
reason to believe meaningful change will take place on the Fedora IRC
channels.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/71>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets

#70: Need official list of sub-projects
---------------------+-------------------
Reporter: bex | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: General | Keywords:
---------------------+-------------------
This page needs to be edited to reflect the officially recognized sub-
projects of Fedora:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Subprojects?rd=Projects
As an example, apparently the campusambassadors group has possibly been
reactivated. The FAS is accepting new applicants and there was confusion
about the requirements. Additionally, the new folks didn't know they
weren't ambassadors and the wiki wasn't updated ... confusion abounds.
Without an official list of projects it is hard to know what is ad-hoc or
working toward acceptance and what is real. Also when things go inactive
we need to be able to gracefully close them.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/70>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets

#68: trademark request
------------------------+-------------------
Reporter: jose2016 | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: Trademarks | Keywords: logos
------------------------+-------------------
Hello
I would like request your permission to use the Fedora logo in clothes.
I would like to do t-shirts with the Fedora logos and sell these in my
country Colombia with your permission.
Is it possible?
Kind regards
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/68>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets

#66: What is a storyteller?
---------------------+------------------------
Reporter: jflory7 | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: General | Keywords: ambassadors
---------------------+------------------------
= Problem =
The "Storyteller" position in Ambassador regions is not clearly defined,
and expectations and responsibilities are left vague.
= Analysis =
As some background, the only public information that can be found about
storytellers is on [https://budget.fedoraproject.org/ budget.fp.o]:
> The Storytelling Delegate will be accountable for Regional Reports. They
don't necessarily have to write all the original content, they just need
to be accountable for ensuring content makes it out onto our channels.
It's enough to get a feel for what this position is likely trying to
accomplish, but any real responsibilities or duties for someone who is
holding this position are left mostly unclear. What is a regional report?
What is the content we are wanting to share and what channels are we
wanting to deliver it to? All of these details are left unclear to the
reader.
== In defense of the storyteller ==
Some of the sentiment I've seen about this position can be boiled down to
one word: ''why?'' I think many Ambassadors are confused why we have this
position, what objective it attempts to accomplish, and if it was just a
foray to have "another title". However, I do think it is worthwhile to
keep this position in Ambassador regions and not just discard the
position.
"Storytelling" in general is a field that the Ambassadors have struggled
with for some time. Every region does it a little bit differently, some
people write great wiki pages with event info, others have no wiki page,
others write blog posts that may accidentally be lost years later, some
regions use event badges, others don't. There's many inconsistencies
between the regions that makes it hard to answer the question: "What are
the Ambassadors up to? How are they impacting the project?"
I think the Storyteller position is one of great interest to resolving
this problem and pushing the Ambassadors program forward. This person
should ideally be actively involved with the region and have an
understanding about the events and activities happening throughout the
region (even if they are not attending a majority of them). A Storyteller
should follow up with Ambassadors and make sure that not only reports
about the event are written, but a strong emphasis is placed on
preservation and communicating those reports (I don't think personal blogs
are a good place for these, but that might be a separate topic).
'''''tl;dr'': If guidelines, expectations, and responsibilities are
provided, the Storyteller has vast potential to help better communicate
how Fedora is working in local communities across the world, how we are
promoting the narrative of open source and Fedora globally, and tying how
regional budgets are dispersed to real impacts on the Fedora Project.'''
== Why the Council is needed ==
This issue is too great for any single region to handle. How this position
is implemented or further shaped has an affect globally on all regions. I
believe the Council is in the best position to:
* Make a decision about what plan of action to pursue
* Determine someone to help guide and lead on improving the Storyteller
position and communicating with Storytellers across all four regions
* Discuss and implement a plan that affects members of the global Fedora
community, not just one region
= Implementation proposal =
The following is my basic proposal of what the storyteller position should
be, and what we could do to get there.
== jflory7's v1 "Storyteller" proposal ==
=== Description ===
* Helps communicate the "story" of a region's participation and activity
in local events and how Fedora is impacting these local communities and
events
* Demonstrates how regional spending is tied to real impacts and outcomes
that affect the growth of the Fedora Project
* Works with other Ambassadors on creating event reports and ensuring they
are properly syndicated throughout the community
* Helps come up with creative ideas to boost Fedora's impact at local
events and how to measure our impact after an event
=== Responsibilities ===
* Communicate with local Ambassadors after an event to ensure report is
written
* Sharing those in a public, static place like the Fedora Community Blog
* If possible, share story on social media or on relevant mailing lists
* Work to create badges for every local event with a Fedora presence
* Write a quarterly / bi-annual "report" on regional participation
documenting what the region is up to
* Other ideas...?
=== Steps to get there ===
1. Create a proposal based on feedback from Council members and current
holders of Storyteller position
2. Agree / vote on proposal
3. Create wiki page to hold information about Storyteller, role,
responsibilities, etc. (''bonus cred'': write a Community Blog post
announcing more details / info on the position)
4. Task current storytellers to share and disseminate this info across all
regions / share on global Ambassadors mailing list
5. ???
6. Profit!
I'm really open to suggestions on this - all of this was a slew of ideas
that came together pretty late. But I really want to help make this a
better position to build and advance Fedora and our community forward, now
and for the future.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/66>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets

#61: Fedora Packaging Guidelines: Weak Dependencies on packages from third-party
repos
-------------------------+--------------------
Reporter: maxamillion | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: General | Keywords: meeting
-------------------------+--------------------
Currently there are not guidelines on whether or not a Weak Dependency can
reside in a third-party repository or must reside within the Fedora
repositories as with hard Requirements.
I am doing a package review and one of the software's utilities requires
ffmpeg but since we don't offer that, the packager requesting review moved
it into a "Suggests:" directive and I'm unsure of how to properly handle
that at this time.
Please advise.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308561
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/61>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets

#43: Create the Fedora Public Budget Page
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: decause | Owner: decause
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: General | Keywords: budget, websites, FCL, transparency,
| community
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
As per the results of our council discussion here
(https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/council-
discuss/2015-October/013742.html) we are heretofore establishing a new
page (wiki or otherwise) that will track the timeline and particulars of
the Fedora Public Budget. It shall include:
Budgetary Components, Projected and Adjusted for each fiscal year:
- Regional Budget Allocations (APAC/EMEA/LATAM/NA)
- Fedora Premier Event Budgets (FLOCK, FUDCon)
- Central Discretionary Fund (approved by Council)
- FAD specific Budgets
Budgetary Milestones and Timelines:
- August: In person meeting at FLOCK
- September: Proposed budget components and metrics from each region
- October: Ratification of Proposed Budget by Council
- March: Confirmation of Received budget w/ Adjustment Meeting
- Quarterly Check-ins with Regional Treasurers
- Halfly approvals of Regional Funds, pending metrics and outcomes
reporting
If there are other details or resources that should be included on this
page, feel free to leave them in the comments below. I would propose that
this page eventually be made available at http://budget.fedoraproject.org
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/43>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets